227 réponses à ce sujet

[ianvillan]

Bleachrude wrote...

The fact that Hawke failed _IS_ partly why I think DA2 is a stronger story. For all the comments about Hawke being incompetent, I actually consider Hawke more of an actual realized character than 99% of RPG stars who pretty much have the entire world revolve around them...

Failing once maybe twice is okay but failing time after time and not learning from the failures is just incompetence.

[Iakus]

MasterScribe wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

The fact that Hawke failed _IS_ partly why I think DA2 is a stronger story. For all the comments about Hawke being incompetent, I actually consider Hawke more of an actual realized character than 99% of RPG stars who pretty much have the entire world revolve around them...

I seem to recall Gaider or Laidlaw calling Hawke "the single most important individual in the world."

It might have just been marketing talk, but it still has the implication that they had a much larger story in mind.

Unfortunately, the game was rushed to release.

Not to mention railroaded failure tends to leave a bad taste in people's mouths.

[Steppenwolf]

Bleachrude wrote...

The fact that Hawke failed _IS_ partly why I think DA2 is a stronger story. For all the comments about Hawke being incompetent, I actually consider Hawke more of an actual realized character than 99% of RPG stars who pretty much have the entire world revolve around them...

Forced failure=fully realized character in a strong story?

[Hiemoth]

Taleroth wrote...

 How did you get navel gazing out of what I said? It's established immediately after the prologue that the motive is to stop the blight and save Fereldan. And that carries on until the final moments. No pontification of philosophy required.

Taleroth wrote...
Hawke was entirely a reactionary figure without agency or motivation.
Being shipped from scene to scene expected to just play along because
the entire world falls apart should he stop and think about what's
happening or why.

That quote is the reason I understood you talking about naval-gazing, as you even specify about Hawke never stopping to think what is happening or why it is happening. Thus my response about how is the Warden different in that regard. I am sorry about misunderstanding it, it was not intentional, but to be truthful, I still have difficulties understanding how what you wrote only referred to proactive motivation without naval-gazing, since you stress all those things in the comment. And I still fail to see how the Warden is any different in this regard, I would argue that Hawke is better as you can assign yourself what makes Hawke what s/he does instead of just doing it because the latest head told them to do it, which was how DAO felt to me.

By the way, at this point I feel it is necessary to stress that this about my subjective experience with the game and I did like DAO for what it was, just as I love DA2 for what it is.

Taleroth wrote...
In Dragon Age 2, the motive is to provide for your family. Then the family becomes wholly irrelevant halfway into the game.

As for motivation, it was quite clear for Hawke and you could even choose it.

It was clear for the first half of the game. It's completely absent after Leandra's death. You get the option to state you're just working to help your family. Then poof, the family is gone.

Providing for family is a motivation for Hawke, yes, but at no point of the game did I feel it was the only reason. And for no reason did I feel during Act II that everything Hawke did was to provide for his/her mother. If that was your subjective experience of the game, I cannot argue that, but I would argue that it is factually incorrect to claim that is the only possible motivation offered by the game.

[Hiemoth]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

The fact that Hawke failed _IS_ partly why I think DA2 is a stronger story. For all the comments about Hawke being incompetent, I actually consider Hawke more of an actual realized character than 99% of RPG stars who pretty much have the entire world revolve around them...

Forced failure=fully realized character in a strong story?

As a counter-question, do you feel that a character who always winds is a more realized character in a strong story?

My answer to your question would be that since Hawke as a character faces those failures, we can see and influence who s/he reacts and deals with that failure. Thus it is a more realized character dealing with more situations than a character who just goes in and always wins.

[Steppenwolf]

You act as though everything always worked out great for the Warden. That wasn't the case at all. But with Hawke we're told that our decisions matter when in fact everything works out the same no matter what we do. It flies in the face of the game's and the franchise's promises of our decisions mattering/changing the gameworld.

[Plaintiff]

Speak for yourselves. My Hawke didn't fail.

[Br3admax]

Plaintiff wrote...

Speak for yourselves. My Hawke didn't fail.

If your Hawke thinks that DA][ was a success, then they have serious problems. 

[Plaintiff]

Br3ad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Speak for yourselves. My Hawke didn't fail.

If your Hawke thinks that DA][ was a success, then they have serious problems. 

None of the bad things that happened in DA II are the fault of my Hawke, so how has he failed? If anything, he stopped things from getting as bad as they could've been, and saved many lives.

Yes, my Hawke succeeded. Resoundingly so.

[Br3admax]

Because as Champion, it's your job to not let things like an explosion in the Chantry to happen. It is not your job to fail in this. Nor is it your job to accelerate the process of blowing up said Chantry.

Modifié par Br3ad, 24 septembre 2013 - 02:21 .

[Iakus]

Plaintiff wrote...

Speak for yourselves. My Hawke didn't fail.

My Hawke managed to save his sister, and made up for his mistake in trusting Anders as best he could.

He performed...adequately.

[Thomas Andresen]

There's only so much anyone can do when surrounded by idiots. There's also this. Hawke did very well with what was at hand. Especially considering that Hawke's primary motivation was not to "save the world", but to build a life.

Because as Champion, it's your job to not let things like an explosion in the Chantry to happen. It is not your job to fail in this. Nor is it your job to accelerate the process of blowing up said Chantry.

What your "job" is as a Champion, what a Champion's duty is, is entirely up to the individual Champion's opinion and moral compass. A Champion, in the Free Marches, is many things, and a "stalwart protector" is only one part of what a Champion can be.

Modifié par Thomas Andresen, 24 septembre 2013 - 02:53 .

[Br3admax]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

There's only so much anyone can do when surrounded by idiots. There's also this. Hawke did very well with what was at hand. Especially considering that Hawke's primary motivation was not to "save the world", but to build a life.

Because as Champion, it's your job to not let things like an explosion in the Chantry to happen. It is not your job to fail in this. Nor is it your job to accelerate the process of blowing up said Chantry.

What your "job" is as a Champion, what a Champion's duty is, is entirely up to the individual Champion's opinion and moral compass. A Champion, in the Free Marches, is many things, and a "stalwart protector" is only one part of what a Champion can be.

Eh, no. The title of Champion is pretty clear in its intent. It is only given out to those that can show leadership in times of turmoil. Not being able to even control your own companions is not what I call helping a city by leading it in a time of turmoil. 

[Heimdall]

iakus wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Speak for yourselves. My Hawke didn't fail.

My Hawke managed to save his sister, and made up for his mistake in trusting Anders as best he could.

He performed...adequately.

Hear, hear

Hawke's main misfortune was that, unlike Shepard and the Warden, most of his problems couldn't be solved with mass murder, not to mention he was surrounded by irrational psychos.

[Heimdall]

Br3ad wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...
There's only so much anyone can do when surrounded by idiots. There's also this. Hawke did very well with what was at hand. Especially considering that Hawke's primary motivation was not to "save the world", but to build a life.

Because as Champion, it's your job to not let things like an explosion in the Chantry to happen. It is not your job to fail in this. Nor is it your job to accelerate the process of blowing up said Chantry.

What your "job" is as a Champion, what a Champion's duty is, is entirely up to the individual Champion's opinion and moral compass. A Champion, in the Free Marches, is many things, and a "stalwart protector" is only one part of what a Champion can be.

Eh, no. The title of Champion is pretty clear in its intent. It is only given out to those that can show leadership in times of turmoil. Not being able to even control your own companions is not what I call helping a city by leading it in a time of turmoil. 

Leadership and controlling the actions of an unstable abomination are two very separate feats.  The former Hawke potentially achieved after the unstable influence of Meredith was removed and he became Viscount.  The latter being impossible.

[Swoopdogg]

 If they did this, they would have to give the smaller worlds much more depth. If it's set in a city and surrounding areas like with Kirkwall, give us the ability to go inside every building, every crevice, climb the tallest tower, etc. Also, the surrounding areas should all be accessible and have a detailed subterranean (sp?) area

[Thomas Andresen]

Br3ad wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

There's only so much anyone can do when surrounded by idiots. There's also this. Hawke did very well with what was at hand. Especially considering that Hawke's primary motivation was not to "save the world", but to build a life.

Because as Champion, it's your job to not let things like an explosion in the Chantry to happen. It is not your job to fail in this. Nor is it your job to accelerate the process of blowing up said Chantry.

What your "job" is as a Champion, what a Champion's duty is, is entirely up to the individual Champion's opinion and moral compass. A Champion, in the Free Marches, is many things, and a "stalwart protector" is only one part of what a Champion can be.

Eh, no. The title of Champion is pretty clear in its intent. It is only given out to those that can show leadership in times of turmoil. Not being able to even control your own companions is not what I call helping a city by leading it in a time of turmoil. 

Here, this is the relevant codex entry. Nowhere does it say specifically what the Champion is supposed to do. I'll paste down the relevant parts.

Champion: an honor unique to the Free Marches. Other terms of reverence suffer the stains of their holders, the lingering baggage of office and entitlement. But champion is not an appointment that can be sought.

The title of Champion is not an office.

There is the contradiction of the honor. Champion is not itself a sign of approval. He or she can be respected or feared, their coming dreaded as much as desired. All that is common is that they have an effect and lives are changed.

The title is an acknowledgement of deeds done, and is utterly non-specific in terms of what kind of person the holder might be, or even what the populace might expect the Champion to do.

[Nefla]

Someone constantly failing makes them as one dimensional as constantly winning does. Real life is a mixture of success and failure, struggle and triumph.

[Thomas Andresen]

Nefla wrote...

Someone constantly failing makes them as one dimensional as constantly winning does. Real life is a mixture of success and failure, struggle and triumph.

Neither Hawke nor the Warden is either of those.

[Hiemoth]

BasilKarlo wrote...

You act as though everything always worked out great for the Warden. That wasn't the case at all. But with Hawke we're told that our decisions matter when in fact everything works out the same no matter what we do. It flies in the face of the game's and the franchise's promises of our decisions mattering/changing the gameworld.

I assume this comment was meant for me. If not, my apologies for my massive hubris. Sometimes I wonder if I am too prideful, but then I remember that I am far too humble for that to be possible.

First of all, Hawke's decision during the game do have multiple impacts and there are a lot of people who are either dead or alive due to those choices, although I am fairly certain that the development team would have liked to have implemented more consequences if they had had the time. Especially the ability to influence the development of Kirkwall was admittadly much talked during the promotion of the game, yet lacked in the game itself. I assume, and this is purely theorizing, that the rebuilding after the Qunari invasion would have been the main sequence where those effects would have been seen, yet the time limits with the third chapter probably hit that one the hardest. Again, purely theorizing.

You are, however, correct in that the sense that the Mage/Templar war would always happen. Yet, for the narrative purposes of the world, it would always needed to happen and was too large a thing to contain in a single game. So would you have liked to have seen it resolved immediately by the player, nubbed in the bud so to speak? How would you have wanted that split then to happen, just be something written in a book or mentioned in the background lore: 'Oh yeah, that by the way happened?'. It needed to happen for the future of the franchise and this was the way they chose do it. And by the way, I am not utterly defending Chapter Three, I did think it was the weakest of the three acts and had thematic problems most likely due to time constraints, but impossible for me to say for certain.

As for the Warden's hardships, I did not realize I was acting anyway, I was simply stating my opinion on the matter. The Warden Origins are somewhat rough in many cases, yes, but they are in a way typical fantasy trope beginnings. Lost families due to injustice, rising from the dregs of society to it's greatest heroes, so forth. During the game itself, though, the Warden doesn't really fail, doesn't really meet situations where traditional success is impossible. Most of the times, if things did not end optimally, it was more due to player choice, so those situations are difficult to define as actual tragedies or failures.

I do not say you shouldn't feel differently about the subject, this is after all just my gaming experience, but to me the Warden basically went everywhere and won the situation for the side he chose.

[Rann]

Lord Aesir wrote...

iakus wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Speak for yourselves. My Hawke didn't fail.

My Hawke managed to save his sister, and made up for his mistake in trusting Anders as best he could.

He performed...adequately.

Hear, hear

Hawke's main misfortune was that, unlike Shepard and the Warden, most of his problems couldn't be solved with mass murder, not to mention he was surrounded by irrational psychos.

My interpretation was that Hawke's dilemma was classic "Kobayashi Maru" -- trying to make the best out of a no-win scenario.  Which is cool to do for a game (though a little more impact would have been nicer), and I actually enjoyed that aspect of it, but we've done that now, so hope we won't do it again.  (Of course, rehashing should be avoided for any game series... or even movie series, actually, which makes my Kobayashi Maru reference even more apropos...)

[Dabrikishaw]

Bioware can do whatever it feels like but I feel they make weaker games when they step away from what they know best,

[Steppenwolf]

Hiemoth wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

You act as though everything always worked out great for the Warden. That wasn't the case at all. But with Hawke we're told that our decisions matter when in fact everything works out the same no matter what we do. It flies in the face of the game's and the franchise's promises of our decisions mattering/changing the gameworld.

I assume this comment was meant for me. If not, my apologies for my massive hubris. Sometimes I wonder if I am too prideful, but then I remember that I am far too humble for that to be possible.

First of all, Hawke's decision during the game do have multiple impacts and there are a lot of people who are either dead or alive due to those choices, although I am fairly certain that the development team would have liked to have implemented more consequences if they had had the time. Especially the ability to influence the development of Kirkwall was admittadly much talked during the promotion of the game, yet lacked in the game itself. I assume, and this is purely theorizing, that the rebuilding after the Qunari invasion would have been the main sequence where those effects would have been seen, yet the time limits with the third chapter probably hit that one the hardest. Again, purely theorizing.

You are, however, correct in that the sense that the Mage/Templar war would always happen. Yet, for the narrative purposes of the world, it would always needed to happen and was too large a thing to contain in a single game. So would you have liked to have seen it resolved immediately by the player, nubbed in the bud so to speak? How would you have wanted that split then to happen, just be something written in a book or mentioned in the background lore: 'Oh yeah, that by the way happened?'. It needed to happen for the future of the franchise and this was the way they chose do it. And by the way, I am not utterly defending Chapter Three, I did think it was the weakest of the three acts and had thematic problems most likely due to time constraints, but impossible for me to say for certain.

None of the people whose lives Hawke can save or end are important. Not to the endgame of DA][ and I can't imagine them being important to the gameworld in the future.
And I don't think something as important as the spark of all out war between the Chantry and the mages should have been shoehorned into a "personal" story like DA][. It was hamfisted and only served to give Hawke grandiosity despite doing NOTHING to earn it.

Hiemoth wrote...

As for the Warden's hardships, I did not realize I was acting anyway, I was simply stating my opinion on the matter. The Warden Origins are somewhat rough in many cases, yes, but they are in a way typical fantasy trope beginnings. Lost families due to injustice, rising from the dregs of society to it's greatest heroes, so forth. During the game itself, though, the Warden doesn't really fail, doesn't really meet situations where traditional success is impossible. Most of the times, if things did not end optimally, it was more due to player choice, so those situations are difficult to define as actual tragedies or failures.

I do not say you shouldn't feel differently about the subject, this is after all just my gaming experience, but to me the Warden basically went everywhere and won the situation for the side he chose.

Does Ostagar ring any bells? How about failing to kill Flemeth?

[Plaintiff]

BasilKarlo wrote...
None of the people whose lives Hawke can save or end are important. Not to the endgame of DA][ and I can't imagine them being important to the gameworld in the future.

It's a good thing that you're here to tell us who is or is not important. Obviously if you can't imagine something, nobody else would ever be able to.

And I don't think something as important as the spark of all out war between the Chantry and the mages should have been shoehorned into a "personal" story like DA][. It was hamfisted and only served to give Hawke grandiosity despite doing NOTHING to earn it.

Some men have greatness thrust upon them.

Why does Hawke need to 'earn' things he never asked for?

[Steppenwolf]

Plaintiff wrote...

It's a good thing that you're here to tell us who is or is not important. Obviously if you can't imagine something, nobody else would ever be able to.

Feel free to throw out some of those applicable characters that mattered to the endgame or that you think will matter to the gameworld going forward.

Plaintiff wrote...

Why does Hawke need to 'earn' things he never asked for?

Because the game and promotional materials said he did?